Kind of torn here. I'm against the government just seizing assets in a copyright violation situation...and really against any of these forfeitures that law-enforcement takes it upon themselves to just steal from people with little to no recourse....then again, Kim Dotcom is a scumbag and a vile excuse of a human being.

Kind of torn here. I'm against the government just seizing assets in a copyright violation situation...and really against any of these forfeitures that law-enforcement takes it upon themselves to just steal from people with little to no recourse....then again, Kim Dotcom is a scumbag and a vile excuse of a human being.

It's really not hard. Always stand up for principles. If you can't stand up for them when it comes to Dotcom they aren't worth anything. Any principle and legal right in a just society has to be measured on how well we can adhere to them in the face of the worst kind of criminal (which Dotcom for all his obnoxiousness is not).

The interesting legal question for our time here to me isn't whether or not he facilitated copyright infringement--that issue has been discussed to death here, and on its face, the law isn't in his favor.

The real question is whether one can be held accountable for using technology to pull strings from afar in order to commit a potentially criminal act. Can one's physical absence shield them from the consequences of the effect of their actions if technology effectively allows one to act anywhere in the world?

Kind of torn here. I'm against the government just seizing assets in a copyright violation situation...and really against any of these forfeitures that law-enforcement takes it upon themselves to just steal from people with little to no recourse....then again, Kim Dotcom is a scumbag and a vile excuse of a human being.

It's really not hard. Always stand up for principles. If you can't stand up for them when it comes to Dotcom they aren't worth anything. Any principle and legal right in a just society has to be measured on how well we can adhere to them in the face of the worst kind of criminal (which Dotcom for all his obnoxiousness is not).

Indeed. You have to stand up for even the questionable people along with others. What's wrong is wrong, and that should apply to high and low.

Authorities having motivation to punish suspects (he hasn't been convicted of anything yet) by seizing assets, be they money or material possessions? Gee, what could possibly go wrong? I see nothing wrong with this!

Oh wait, ask the countless scores of people who have everything seized under the aegis of our drug laws. This is just yet another example of what a sputtering monster the US' legal system has become.

I don't even understand how the US can seize bank accounts in other countries that don't even belong to a US citizen.

Didn't you know, US law applies everywhere? Well, except those pesky ones about "rights" and such. But all the good ones that let them snatch undesirables and the enemies of their campaign contributors, those work everywhere.

Kim lost all credibility when he spread lies online against he USA government. I get he might hate them, but trying to take a family with you who is mourning the death of their son is sick and irresponsible.

Even Americans don't believe me when I explain what is "eminent domain."Few people have a problem if a public road is to be built and some private houses are in the way and the government forces the owners to sell and are given a fair market price (or better)This is acceptable because the road is for everyone (the public.)

In the USA if a mall or housing development is wanted by a profit seeking person or company and you don't want to sell, or you want a higher price than you are being offered, it is perfectly legal for any state, city, county or federal government to force you off your property even if you do not accept what the government offers to pay you. The government who now owns the property, can sell the property (but often just gives it) to the profit seeking developer.

How many developed countries are allowed to do this to their private citizens simply to enrich some already enriched entity. Yet the US is so preachy proud of their "free markets" and lack of government interference.

Any principle and legal right in a just society has to be measured on how well we can adhere to them in the face of the worst kind of criminal (which Dotcom for all his obnoxiousness is not).

He's a convicted criminal (identity theft back in the 90's). So yeah, he's a criminal. Also an alleged criminal in the US.

Don't know why I bother, but notice the little word "worst" in there. I can think of a lot worse crimes and criminals. Even for those we have to stand up for their rights though.

There's someone worse? So then it can't be that "...Kim Dotcom is a scumbag and a vile excuse of a human being"?

He's a leech, flat out. And his crimes aren't even the end of his scumbaggery.

We get it, he kicked your wife and seduced your dog or whatever. He still has rights to due process and not having his shit stolen by foreign governments and such.

Who the hell suggested he didn't? Wasn't me. Vile excuse's of human beings....and even the "worst kind of criminal" do IMO. If anything Kazper was implying otherwise (although maybe wasn't his intent).

Even Americans don't believe me when I explain what is "eminent domain."Few people have a problem if a public road is to be built and some private houses are in the way and the government forces the owners to sell and are given a fair market price (or better)This is acceptable because the road is for everyone (the public.)

In the USA if a mall or housing development is wanted by a profit seeking person or company and you don't want to sell, or you want a higher price than you are being offered, it is perfectly legal for any state, city, county or federal government to force you off your property even if you do not accept what the government offers to pay you. The government who now owns the property, can sell the property (but often just gives it) to the profit seeking developer.

How many developed countries are allowed to do this to their private citizens simply to enrich some already enriched entity. Yet the US is so preachy proud of their "free markets" and lack of government interference.

Government doesn't interfere with the Masters' profits on behalf of the peasants.

Kind of torn here. I'm against the government just seizing assets in a copyright violation situation...and really against any of these forfeitures that law-enforcement takes it upon themselves to just steal from people with little to no recourse....then again, Kim Dotcom is a scumbag and a vile excuse of a human being.

So maybe there's a case that Dotcom 'stole' from copyright holders, but there is clear eveidence the so-called US 'Justice' Dept. is actually stealilng from him.When you make Dotcom look like the good guy, maybe the 'Justice' Department should change its name to something like 'Officially Sanctioned Crime Dept.'

Kind of torn here. I'm against the government just seizing assets in a copyright violation situation...and really against any of these forfeitures that law-enforcement takes it upon themselves to just steal from people with little to no recourse....then again, Kim Dotcom is a scumbag and a vile excuse of a human being.

When you make Dotcom look like the good guy, maybe the 'Justice' Department should change its name..

I suffer under no delusions that Dotcom is "the good guy", even though this asset seizure stuff reeks of BS.

Also put into perspective: would it OK if another country did this to someone in the US?

For example, if Uber did something potentially illegal in China, would it be OK if China just seized all of Uber's China-based assets, without any kind of legal due process?

You can't accuse someone of being a criminal, not try them, and just take their stuff... I mean, we're worse than Russia or China in this aspect.

Not just the China based assets.

You have to imagine China seizing all assets of Uber, and Ubers execs, globally, and flying special forces to the US to arrest Uber’s CEO, and trying to force him to come to China for a "fair" trial, and so on.

Also put into perspective: would it OK if another country did this to someone in the US?

For example, if Uber did something potentially illegal in China, would it be OK if China just seized all of Uber's China-based assets, without any kind of legal due process?

You can't accuse someone of being a criminal, not try them, and just take their stuff... I mean, we're worse than Russia or China in this aspect.

Not just the China based assets.

You have to imagine China seizing all assets of Uber, and Ubers execs, globally, and flying special forces to the US to arrest Uber’s CEO, and trying to force him to come to China for a "fair" trial, and so on.

Kind of torn here. I'm against the government just seizing assets in a copyright violation situation...and really against any of these forfeitures that law-enforcement takes it upon themselves to just steal from people with little to no recourse....then again, Kim Dotcom is a scumbag and a vile excuse of a human being.

If the people allow these types of intrusions because we dislike Dotcom, the justice department will use this as precedent and push the lines further in the future. We need to be extra careful in allowing governments to seize assets. How can people defend themselves in an environment where a government can take everything we have? Give an inch and they'll take a mile.

Kind of torn here. I'm against the government just seizing assets in a copyright violation situation...and really against any of these forfeitures that law-enforcement takes it upon themselves to just steal from people with little to no recourse....then again, Kim Dotcom is a scumbag and a vile excuse of a human being.

When you make Dotcom look like the good guy, maybe the 'Justice' Department should change its name..

I suffer under no delusions that Dotcom is "the good guy", even though this asset seizure stuff reeks of BS.

I don't think you could really be comparing the legality or morality of the 'Justice' Dept. (a part of govt in charge of actually applying THE LAW, for which we are paying for with our taxes; also, hilariously enough, it has "Justice' in its name) to any random dude from NZ.

edit: that's like ppl saying "the cop shot that guy because he disrespected him and was rude"; we pay the cop to be lawful, not the random guy, it's his job he signed up forthere is no equivalency here

Kind of torn here. I'm against the government just seizing assets in a copyright violation situation...and really against any of these forfeitures that law-enforcement takes it upon themselves to just steal from people with little to no recourse....then again, Kim Dotcom is a scumbag and a vile excuse of a human being.

If the people allow these types of intrusions because we dislike Dotcom, the justice department will use this as precedent and push the lines further in the future. We need to be extra careful in allowing governments to seize assets. How can people defend themselves in an environment where a government can take everything we have? Give an inch and they'll take a mile.

Funny how not a single gun nut, I mean 'second amendment supporter' is trying to say how his guns would help in case this happens to him

Kind of torn here. I'm against the government just seizing assets in a copyright violation situation...and really against any of these forfeitures that law-enforcement takes it upon themselves to just steal from people with little to no recourse....then again, Kim Dotcom is a scumbag and a vile excuse of a human being.

When you make Dotcom look like the good guy, maybe the 'Justice' Department should change its name..

I suffer under no delusions that Dotcom is "the good guy", even though this asset seizure stuff reeks of BS.

I don't think you could really be comparing the legality or morality of the 'Justice' Dept.

I'm not. Others seem to be.

Quote:

(a part of govt in charge of actually applying THE LAW, for which we are paying for with our taxes; also, hilariously enough, it has "Justice' in its name) to any random dude from NZ.

edit: that's like ppl saying "the cop shot that guy because he disrespected him and was rude"; we pay the cop to be lawful, not the random guy, it's his job he signed up for

It kinda looks like you are, too.

Ain't no "good guy" here. Just a DoJ that's stretching the idea of "justice" to the breaking point and a vile excuse of a human being scumbag.

That's because Dotcom, the defense maintains, isn't a fugitive because he is lawfully challenging his extradition in the New Zealand courts.

I find this argument quite compelling.

Refusing to roll over and waive/cede all your legal rights so that the prosecution has no opposition doesn't make you a fugitive.

Jumping bail would. But exhausting your appeals doesn't.

It's not compelling because if he successfully fights extradition, he still doesn't get those assets back. If he successfully argues that he broke no laws in New Zealand, and is not subject to extradition then he cannot be prosecuted there.But he still did break laws outside of New Zealand. He is subject to those laws outside of New Zealand and any assets he holds outside of New Zealand are also subject to the laws in which those assets are held.If you want to do things that are illegal in one nation but illegal in others you need to operate your businesses, live, and keep your assets in the nation or nations in which those actions are legal.If he wants to fight to retrieve the seized assets, then he's going to have to subject himself to that nation's legal authority in person. Legal rights and legal accountability are a matched set.

Kind of torn here. I'm against the government just seizing assets in a copyright violation situation...and really against any of these forfeitures that law-enforcement takes it upon themselves to just steal from people with little to no recourse....then again, Kim Dotcom is a scumbag and a vile excuse of a human being.

When you make Dotcom look like the good guy, maybe the 'Justice' Department should change its name..

I suffer under no delusions that Dotcom is "the good guy", even though this asset seizure stuff reeks of BS.

I don't think you could really be comparing the legality or morality of the 'Justice' Dept.

I'm not. Others seem to be.

Quote:

(a part of govt in charge of actually applying THE LAW, for which we are paying for with our taxes; also, hilariously enough, it has "Justice' in its name) to any random dude from NZ.

edit: that's like ppl saying "the cop shot that guy because he disrespected him and was rude"; we pay the cop to be lawful, not the random guy, it's his job he signed up for

It kinda looks like you are, too.

Ain't no "good guy" here. Just a DoJ that's stretching the idea of "justice" to the breaking point and a vile excuse of a human being scumbag.

and, funny enough, the 'vile excuse of a human being scumbag' is the one standing up for your rights against the ones who's salaries you are paying for

I'm sorry, but you really missed my point

edit: let me try another analogy here: Dotcom is like Larry Flint or Hugh Hefner standing up for free speech, you don't have to like pornography to appreciate that

That's because Dotcom, the defense maintains, isn't a fugitive because he is lawfully challenging his extradition in the New Zealand courts.

I find this argument quite compelling.

Refusing to roll over and waive/cede all your legal rights so that the prosecution has no opposition doesn't make you a fugitive.

Jumping bail would. But exhausting your appeals doesn't.

It's not compelling because if he successfully fights extradition, he still doesn't get those assets back. If he successfully argues that he broke no laws in New Zealand, and is not subject to extradition then he cannot be prosecuted there.But he still did break laws outside of New Zealand. He is subject to those laws outside of New Zealand and any assets he holds outside of New Zealand are also subject to the laws in which those assets are held.If you want to do things that are illegal in one nation but illegal in others you need to operate your businesses, live, and keep your assets in the nation or nations in which those actions are legal.If he wants to fight to retrieve the seized assets, then he's going to have to subject himself to that nation's legal authority in person. Legal rights and legal accountability are a matched set.

Aside from the servers which were rented, his "assets" weren't in the US. What jurisdiction did we have to take them?

Kind of torn here. I'm against the government just seizing assets in a copyright violation situation...and really against any of these forfeitures that law-enforcement takes it upon themselves to just steal from people with little to no recourse....then again, Kim Dotcom is a scumbag and a vile excuse of a human being.

When you make Dotcom look like the good guy, maybe the 'Justice' Department should change its name..

I suffer under no delusions that Dotcom is "the good guy", even though this asset seizure stuff reeks of BS.

I don't think you could really be comparing the legality or morality of the 'Justice' Dept.

I'm not. Others seem to be.

Quote:

(a part of govt in charge of actually applying THE LAW, for which we are paying for with our taxes; also, hilariously enough, it has "Justice' in its name) to any random dude from NZ.

edit: that's like ppl saying "the cop shot that guy because he disrespected him and was rude"; we pay the cop to be lawful, not the random guy, it's his job he signed up for

It kinda looks like you are, too.

Ain't no "good guy" here. Just a DoJ that's stretching the idea of "justice" to the breaking point and a vile excuse of a human being scumbag.

and, funny enough, the 'vile excuse of a human being scumbag' is the one standing up for your rights

So he's still going through the legal process in NZ, he's not on the run from the law, he's not been convicted of any crime, nor has the property in question been proven to be purchased with the proceeds of crime. What basis in law is there for this theft?